Evidence desk · Personal
Operating filters
What this is
The priors I bring to every verdict, set before scoring any single claim. Two layers: durable filters — who I am biologically, which raises or lowers the bar on whole categories of claim — and phase logic — the fact that the same supplement can be skip-now, great-later. Every entry on this desk is read through both.
Durable filters
These set the priors before a claim is even scored. A claim that lands in a high-priority lane (cardiometabolic, given the profile below) clears a lower bar to act once it's validated, because high baseline risk means a bigger absolute benefit. A claim that's redundant with what a drug already does, or that collides with a medication, gets deprioritized or routed to a clinician.
| Lens | What it changes |
|---|---|
| Metabolic — South Asian, insulin-resistant (HOMA-IR 3.65), Pattern B / small-LDL, ApoB target <70 | Cardiometabolic, lipid, and glucose claims get higher priority and a lower bar to act once validated (high baseline risk → larger absolute benefit). Check redundancy with tirzepatide first. |
| On tirzepatide (Zepbound) | Glucose-lowering claims are often redundant. GI-loading supplements get deprioritized. Appetite suppression makes protein hard → protein-sparing matters. |
| Medications — lisinopril, Adderall XR, finasteride, oral minoxidil | Screen vasoactive / BP claims for additive hypotension; screen CYP3A4 / P-gp and vitamin-C / pH timing against Adderall. Anything touching a med routes through the prescriber. |
| Genetics — VDR reduced-function, GSTP1 ~60%, TCF7L2, CYP2D6 pending WGS | D3 need is real; glutathione-support has a rationale; glycemic control is a permanent priority; metabolizer-dependent claims stay uncertain until the WGS lands. |
| Skin — Fitzpatrick ~4.5, pigmentation work, tretinoin on board | Judge skin / antioxidant claims against pigmentation + photoprotection. Collagen is skin/tendon support, not protein. |
| Sleep — low-to-moderate OSA, low REM / duration | Separate "sleep-quality supplement" from "treats apnea." Apnea is mechanical — no capsule fixes it; the real levers are weight loss + the OSA pathway (PSG, CPAP/MAD). |
| System fit — ADHD, pill fatigue, system-not-mood | Complexity is a real cost → bias to a minimal, high-leverage stack. Prefer claims with measurable, trackable (DEXA / lab) outcomes over "feel." |
Phase logic
The same claim can be skip-now and great-later. Which phase I'm in changes what's worth taking and — just as important — whether I can even attribute an effect.
Phase 1 · Cut & Recomp (now → ~157 lb)
Lens: aggressive fat loss on a GLP-1; muscle retention is the prize; attribution is muddied (drug + deficit running at once).
Favor: complete protein (whey), creatine, resistance training, psyllium (LDL + satiety + regularity), magnesium repletion, D3, omega-3 maintenance, skin/connective-tissue support.
Skip / defer: anything redundant with tirzepatide (glucose / "metabolism" boosters), GI-competing pills, incomplete protein counted as protein, placebo-loaded "feel" supplements (a deficit inflates placebo), most new n-of-1s — you can't attribute cleanly now.
Attribution rule: don't start multiple things at once; judge on DEXA / labs / logged lifts, never on feel.
Phase 2 · Lean Build (~157 → 170 lb, optional)
Lens: surplus, hypertrophy; if the GLP-1 is off, appetite and attribution both clear → the best window for clean n-of-1s.
Favor: creatine (continues), easy complete protein, performance ergogenics now justifiable (citrulline, beta-alanine, caffeine timing), recovery / sleep support for the higher training stress.
Revisit: items skipped in the cut for redundancy or GI load; longevity items stay watch-only unless human hard-outcome data has matured.
Phase 3 · Sustain / Healthspan (held at goal)
Lens: maintenance + long-term health; body-comp goal met → focus shifts to cardiometabolic durability, cognition, joints, longevity.
Favor: validated-surrogate maintenance (ApoB / lipids, glucose, BP), bone/joint preservation, cognitive maintenance, antioxidant / glutathione support (GSTP1), and longevity compounds that have since climbed the evidence ladder.
The phase point: a compound with no body-comp ROI and noisy attribution in the cut (skip) can be a legitimate sustain-phase n-of-1 once the goal is healthspan, the stack is stable, and attribution is clean. Watch-only graduates to provisional-try here, never earlier.
The decision rule
Once a claim clears the filters and the phase lens, the act/skip call is the same four-box rule from is it strong enough to act?:
| Low cost / risk | High cost / risk | |
|---|---|---|
| Strong evidence | Do it, permanently. | Do it if the upside justifies the downside — clinician-gated. |
| Weak evidence | Reasonable to try as a pre-set n-of-1. | Don't. This is where hype lives. |
Asymmetry is half the decision: cheap, safe, reversible + might-help → try even on weak evidence; expensive, risky, or irreversible + might-help → wait even when tempted. An honest n-of-1 changes one variable, fixes an objective metric + timeframe + stop rule in advance, expects regression to the mean, and never judges on feel — best run in Build or Sustain, not the Cut.
Quarterly review
Every quarter, walk the stack: has anything drifted above its evidence? Is anything watch-only now backed by human hard-outcome data (promote it)? Has anything in the permanent column been demoted by newer evidence? Did I add something multi-variable and break attribution? Did I act on a relative or surrogate claim without checking the absolute number or validation?